Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 266 posts

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#71

Post by chrisco255 »

gre wrote: post #48
segfaultbuserr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back when I was in school, I really hated Billboard Top 10 for the same reason. Once I've overheard them so many times, often unpleasantly, the actual song became unlistenable, not because I dislike them.

With pop music you hear exactly the same track over and over with no variation and it gets predictable and monotonous. With classical, jazz, or live music there are many performances, so any two recordings will not sound identical. This is one reason I can't stand pop music after a few listens.

I have no trouble listening to pop music from the 80s, 90s and early 00s. I don't know if that's old age and nostalgia or if music was just better then. I think in many cases, music was just better in prior decades, pop music in particular.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#72

Post by fiblye »

bawolff wrote: post #68
conception wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also why people love pop music. It is predictable, safe and unchallenging.

Is music supposed to challenge you? To each their own, but if i wanted to be challenged i read a book, learn something new, etc. I think i listen to music because it has an effect of transfering emotional state/causes me to feel. Being intellectually challenging is not a good thing in that context. (Although i still want it to be unpredictable and not neccesarily safe)

> Is music supposed to challenge you?

Music can be whatever it wants. But music having complex melodies, varied lyrics, telling stories, and having social or political commentary has very much always been a thing. Plenty of that music still exists and is still being made, but it's not really found on modern pop stations (although older pop stations have slightly more complex work).

Just walking by a radio today bothers me. I can't deal with the ear sugar that's completely flat and features non-dynamic instrumentals from start to finish and lyrics that are all just some variation of "yeah yeah club dance club club club club party party club club love you dance dance drunk drunk club club don't love you now". And I'm not even "old" yet. I can't tell singers apart (particularly women) because they seem to be melding into some non-unique vocal style and every pop artist has the exact same instrumental backing.

Muzak has been used for decades to serve as non-distracting background noise. Simple instrumentals with no vocals or anything, used just to fill a void and assure people that they're alive and the business is probably operating. It's almost music, but not quite. Just budget ambiance. Now top 40 dance/pop hits are what play in elevators. Soulless, manufactured music, but now it's something with a manufactured persona stuck to it. Pop today has devoured muzak's market share and taken its role.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#73

Post by adamsea »

bawolff wrote: post #68
conception wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also why people love pop music. It is predictable, safe and unchallenging.

Is music supposed to challenge you? To each their own, but if i wanted to be challenged i read a book, learn something new, etc. I think i listen to music because it has an effect of transfering emotional state/causes me to feel. Being intellectually challenging is not a good thing in that context. (Although i still want it to be unpredictable and not neccesarily safe)

Couldn’t someone take what you just said and replace the word “music” with “book”, or “film”?

IMHO art (all the arts), art is like food.

There’s nothing wrong with ice cream, or McDonald’s sometimes. Not everyone has to be vegan.

Eat junk food all the time, though, and it’s unhealthy for you.

I think the same is true for music, film, the visual arts, literature, fashion, design, etc.

It’s your loss, IMHO. It’s like someone who doesn’t like to travel - it’s a big world out there.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#74

Post by hrktb »

swiley wrote: post #3

This would be great. The idea of “best ranked music” results in mediocre, bland music that’s mostly ranked based on the social connections of the artist. Musical culture and genres are extremely diverse and trying to rank individual pieces of music makes discovery harder. I doubt they’ll actually do this of course. Their monetization model relies on ranking.

Blandness is a feature for my family. We have wildly different tastes, and it’s hard to come with a consensus on what to listen in the car. The top 40/50 has a high chance of being “fine” for everybody.

That’s what I would put in the background if I had to make random people wait in a room for an hour.

There are “discovery” playlist outside of the ranked ones, so I wouldn’t be surprised if my use is not so far from their intended purpose.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#75

Post by dredmorbius »

chriselles wrote: post #67

Has Zipf’s Law ever applied to the distribution of music consumption? When shaped by industry, algorithm, or serendipity?

Yes, strongly.

The influence of hitmakers and gatekeepers adjusts what makes the curve, and shifts it somewhat, but the overal outlines of any informational domain will be governed by Zipf.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#76

Post by menybuvico »

tomcam wrote: post #64
mNovak wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I agree. I anticipate some amount of people still discover music on the radio (even pop mega hits you have to hear the first time somewhere), then go seek it out on spotify. I haven't much been in a car, thus haven't heard the radio, in 7 months. I have no idea what's on the top 40 right now.

WAP.

I got curious and listened to it, and after listening to that load of rubbish, I simply don't feel connected with society anymore. Do people actually listen to this and like it, or is it just the perceived shock value that counts?

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#77

Post by SimplyUnknown »

chrisco255 wrote: post #71
gre wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With pop music you hear exactly the same track over and over with no variation and it gets predictable and monotonous. With classical, jazz, or live music there are many performances, so any two recordings will not sound identical. This is one reason I can't stand pop music after a few listens.

I have no trouble listening to pop music from the 80s, 90s and early 00s. I don't know if that's old age and nostalgia or if music was just better then. I think in many cases, music was just better in prior decades, pop music in particular.

I also think that's partly survivor bias. You listen to the best hits of those decades, tricking you into thinking that all music from those decades was like that. In reality, there was a lot of junk in those times too but we don't listen to it anymore. The same will happen with the 10s and the current 20s in twenty years.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#78

Post by geraltofrivia »

menybuvico wrote: post #76
tomcam wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WAP.

I got curious and listened to it, and after listening to that load of rubbish, I simply don't feel connected with society anymore. Do people actually listen to this and like it, or is it just the perceived shock value that counts?

WAP specifically feels like an experiment. A female singer's equivalent to the overtly sexual hiphop. In music, and in video.

Anecdotal: Friends have acknowledged that they're more disgusted by it than the male singer's counterparts. I admit I am, too. And this is regardless of the particular singer's ability to sing/rap, or the lack thereof.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#79

Post by watwut »

adamsea wrote: post #73
bawolff wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is music supposed to challenge you? To each their own, but if i wanted to be challenged i read a book, learn something new, etc. I think i listen to music because it has an effect of transfering emotional state/causes me to feel. Being intellectually challenging is not a good thing in that context. (Although i still want it to be unpredictable and not neccesarily safe)

Couldn’t someone take what you just said and replace the word “music” with “book”, or “film”? IMHO art (all the arts), art is like food. There’s nothing wrong with ice cream, or McDonald’s sometimes. Not everyone has to be vegan. Eat junk food all the time, though, and it’s unhealthy for you. I think the same is true for music, film, the visual arts, literature, fashion, design, etc. It’s your loss, IMHO. It’s like s…

Junk food is bad comparison, because listening to unchallenging music will not harm you at all. For that matter, the same goes with visual arts and fashion and design. There are movies and books that can actually harm you (when it teaches wrong history or facts for example, when violence is more then you can handle), but I would argue the cheap predictable popular ones are rarely those.

It is cheap argument to try to imply that unchallenging pop music somehow harms the listeners, but that argument does not have base in reality.

Re: Is Spotify Killing the Top 40?

#80

Post by raverbashing »

Oh is it? Good

Top 40 are only relevant to music executives that make their living pumping up the worse kinds of musical garbage to people that base their musical tastes into what "other people" (payola, it's payola) like.

And it seems that, as the internet came and the music distribution became more long-tailed, the worse the "top 40" became.

Post reply on HN